- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
About 1-vid-specific typing – @heresy made a similar point in Discord and I’ve been mulling over it too. One thing that I’ve been forced to acknowledge is that vultology is a diagnostic tool (in a toolbox) but not an absolute verdict of type. In theory that might come in the form of genetic testing later. And we don’t yet know the operational limits of vultology, but lets say this:
Notes on Modulation
Even when correctly identifying signals & energetics of the given video, perhaps there remains the possibility of modulation giving a sister typing. Having just finished the development levels series, I haven’t explored the repercussions of its theoretical addition fully but lets say that, being pessimistic, modulating can genuinely obscure type.
To put an example, it may be the case that a NeTi modulating up Ti can look indistinguishable from a TiNe for brief periods, even according to the code standards as of today. For example, we take three videos and see:
- Vid #1: Results by the code TiNe ll–
- Vid #2: Results by the code NeTi ll–
- Vid #3: Results by the code NeTi l—
If that is the case, then a reading needs to be done on a per-video basis, and the “absolute truth” of their type needs a different sort of triangulation. This is already in effect as standard practice is to look at more videos of them, but the analysis by codex needs to be constrained to one video at a time, and when done so, it may land on the adjacent type.
So far the best remedy I’ve found for this is to make note of how the energetics of functions do look different in each hierarchical position. So for instance, there is a visual difference between:
- Pe as the lead position
- Pe as the auxiliary position
- Pe as the tertiary position
- Pe as the polar position
… And so on for the others. Nothing very thorough has been written or GIF’d about how the functions look in each position, but I think this could be a really awesome resource to have.
Will need to keep studying the Type II– Reviser/Conductor dynamic, as the differences between Type II Revisers & Conductors seem exceedingly subtle.
Disclaimer: Right ^
And having said that, there is a genuine possibility, and I’ve seen glimpses of it myself, that modulation sometimes goes beyond the subtlety we can fairly identify. At some point it becomes irresponsible to say to a practitioner “you’re not seeing the subtlety” and one needs to concede that (lets say) a TeSi ll– may look no different than an SiTe ll– for short bursts of time. ( @bella – that video of Bart Ehrman you posted does look TeSi ll– to me)
So if it is impossible to “100% guarantee” an accurate typing by one video alone, due to what modulation can obscure, then we can actually integrate that knowledge into the system and be sure to double-check other videos and triangulate data when seeking the holistic reality.
But for doing future quizzes, we can keep it to 1 given video, so as to have consistency in what precisely is being examined at the given moment/footage, and grade just that. I think that would be the most fair and consistent approach. I wonder what you guys think?